Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

<i>Decision of Note:</i> 'Buck Rogers' Dilution Claim Remains in Play

By Stan Soocher
October 01, 2016

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a false designation-of-origin claim under the federal Lanham Act in a “Buck Rogers” trademark dispute, but allowed the plaintiff to proceed with a trademark dilution claim under the federal statute. The Dille Family Trust v. The Nowlan Family Trust, 15-6231.

In 1942, to settle litigation between them, the widow of Buck Rogers creator Philip Francis Nowlan assigned intellectual property rights, including “Buck Rogers” trademarks, to the John F. Dille Co., for whose National Newspaper Service the late Nowlan had come up with the Rogers character. But the Dille and Nowlan trusts nevertheless have battled for years over Buck Rogers trademark rights.

The Dille Trust currently claims that a Nowlan Trust agent pitched a Buck Rogers pilot script and series character “bible” to the Sy-Fy Network. As to the Dille Trust's false designation of origin claim under '43(a) of the Lanham Act, Pennsylvania federal District Judge Wendy Beetlestone found “to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant marketed the script and series bible as discrete products to Sy-Fy and other networks, these items constitute 'tangible products sold in the marketplace,' and therefore qualify as 'goods' under the Lanham Act.” But Judge Beetlestone added “future movies or television series are neither 'tangible,' nor 'sold in the marketplace' because they do not yet exist as discrete products. Plaintiff cannot overcome the hypothetical nature of these products by basing its claim on the 'rights' to produce them because ' intangible rights are specifically excluded from the purview of the Lanham Act.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.